Yasodha v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Aravakurichi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/04/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Yasodha,

2. Gayathri,

3. Siva @ Sivanandham,

4. Murugan @ Nagaraj, ... Petitioners/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District.

(Crime No.70/2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu, For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS 1/6

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.70 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding offences under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.70 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that due to property dispute, on 23.02.2026 at about 3 a.m., the petitioners along with the other accused persons abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, attacked him and also caused injuries to him. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not 2/6

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that due to property dispute, the said occurrence happened and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, as the investigation is pending.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners and also considering the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and no previous case is pending against the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 3/6

with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. 4/6

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 06.04.2026 TTA To 1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Aravakurichi, Karur District.

2.Inspector of Police, Aravakurichi Police Station, Karur District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL,J TTA

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6606 of 2026 Date : 06/04/2026 6/6